dd are you ronkny or have you picked up his habit on not reading posts?

I gave you the history, but here we go again, after the fall of the Turkist empire after W W I, the British was given by the League of Nations, a European/American creation, control over the area then known as the Palestinian Mandadate, don't believe me, look it up.

Among the native people in that area were Jews and Arabs, some who were Christians and some who were Muslims. don't believe me, look it up.

in 1948, the territory known as the British Palestinian Mandate was split into Trans Jordan and given to the Hashimate King and part given to the Jews as the new State of Israel. This was done by the UN, don't believe me, look it up

hey ronkny, I only take head ache pills or other pills as precribed by my doctors. Chill pills??? are those something you prescribe as a dentist? can dentists prescribe controlled substances for their patients?

did I not list the info sought by dd previously as shown by my quote?

does it not appear that he failed to read the post quoted?

as you claim you don't read posts?

did I use profanity, or ridicule him, I think not

awful sensitive there "old boy". awful sensitive, perhaps you should follow your own advice and take a "chill pill". of course you are happy, we are discussing you again, not Newt.

Logged

AllenFirst and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband. They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind). Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.

hey ronkny, I only take head ache pills or other pills as precribed by my doctors. Chill pills??? are those something you prescribe as a dentist? can dentists prescribe controlled substances for their patients?

did I not list the info sought by dd previously as shown by my quote?

does it not appear that he failed to read the post quoted?

as you claim you don't read posts?

did I use profanity, or ridicule him, I think not

awful sensitive there "old boy". awful sensitive, perhaps you should follow your own advice and take a "chill pill". of course you are happy, we are discussing you again, not Newt.

No one has the time to read everything you post.

Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. Ronald Reagan

Newt Gingrich continued his crusade against activist judges Sunday, saying he would consider sending the Capitol Police or a United States Marshal to subpoena any federal judge who issued an opinion he thought was out of sync with American values. He would then encourage Congress to impeach the judge.

Mr. Gingrich has been speaking out against what he considers activist judges for years. He highlighted the issue in a debate Thursday and discussed it Saturday in a conference call with reporters. He said, approvingly, that some past presidents, including Lincoln, had paid no attention to certain Supreme Court decisions and thought that in some cases, a president should ignore the court.

On Sunday, he addressed the matter further on CBS’s “Face the Nation” with Bob Schieffer. In fact, Mr. Schieffer told his audience that Gingrich aides had urged the host to ask about the judiciary, indicating that the topic is something Mr. Gingrich believes will help him in his campaign, especially with conservatives and evangelicals.

Mr. Gingrich’s beef began with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, which removed the phrase “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. To Mr. Gingrich, this was a sign of the rampant “secularism” undermining the country’s moral fiber and assaulting individual liberties.

When judges issue “terrible” decisions, Mr. Gingrich’s solution is to subpoena them and make them explain their decision to Congress and the country. Mr. Schieffer noted that such action might be unconstitutional and asked Mr. Gingrich how, from a practical point of view, he would enforce this. Would he send the Capitol police to arrest such judges?

“If you had to,” Mr. Gingrich replied. “Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. marshal.” Then, he said, he would encourage impeachment of the judge.

Mr. Schieffer suggested such actions would throw the entire judicial system into chaos. He said that even conservative lawyers found the idea ludicrous and quoted one former attorney general, Michael Mukasey, as saying it was “dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off the wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle.”

Mr. Gingrich said that lawyers were trained to view judges as supreme, and that they had lost perspective.

The subject of a secular and elitist judiciary, he said, raised the core question for voters to decide in the 2012 presidential race: “Do you want to move toward American exceptionalism and reassert the Constitution, the nature of America? Or do you want to become a secular, European sort of bureaucratic socialist society?”

.

Logged

AllenFirst and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband. They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind). Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.

You're right - that is what they call themselves right now. But what basis do they use to claim that term?

We have a Palestine Texas, who I guess say that they are Palestinians. ??

You can show me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the use of 'Palestinans' was invented with the current war with Israel. ('67)

That last part is untrue, for certain. The term long predates Israel. Herodotus referred to 'Palaistine' five centuries before Christ.

The argument against Palestinian identity seems to be that they were currently stateless during the founding of Israel. But isn't that equally true of the Jews? Why aren't Jews an 'invented people' as well? I don't see a clear distinction there, but one that's designed for domestic political consumption.

Ronkny hit the nail on the head: "How far back do you want to go?" The Jews' claim on the land was at least as stale as the Palestinians', and both nations were long ago subsumed by enemies. On the other hand, the Palestinians forced off the land by the Israelis weren't 'invented'--they were real people who lived there--not in ancient history of the long-dead, but in the memory of many living people. The Israelis, who had no personal or individual claim on the land, ran them off by force. That's why they were refugees. Zionism and Manifest Destiny have certain things in common.

I wouldn't be happy if someone showed up in my town with guns and claimed a millenium-old right to my property and that of my neighbors, regardless if some blowhard presidential candidate wanted to debate whether I was 'invented', and neither would you.

The recalcitrance and belligerence of the Palestinians hasn't helped their cause, but American politicians egging on Israeli intransigence and aggression isn't helping, either.

Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain

That last part is untrue, for certain. The term long predates Israel. Herodotus referred to 'Palaistine' five centuries before Christ.

I'm sure that's not confusing to Christians--they read about Palestinians in the Bible pretty regularly, after all. Palestine, Canaan, Judah, Land of the Jews, Land of the Hebrews, The Holy Land and some other such terms are all used more or less interchangeably, some being time-sensitive so to speak (based upon the era at issue), though I don't think the specific terms "Palestine" or "Palestinian" are used very frequently (if "Palestinian" is used at all--I think most references are to the land rather than the people).

Logged

- Reason is to understanding as theory is to music, and critical thinking is as mastery of theory.- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves. -Richard Feynman

not to mention that the historian cited by PM, although Jewish, is never mentioned in the "good book". He does provide some of the historical proof for incidents and people mentioned in the Bible, including Jesus.

here is a link to the transcript of "face the nation" which has Newt's comments about the courts:

. . . Schieffer: I want to talk to you a little bit about this whole business. You really turned up the heat on what you call activist judges. You talked about this the last time you were on Face the Nation and yesterday you had a telephone conference call with reporters because you want to put this out front and center. In fact, your folks said to me be sure and ask him about judges so I know this is something you want to talk about. Basically, what you said was, sometimes in the past, presidents have paid no attention to the Supreme Court when it issued a ruling and you said there might be times or there would be times now when a president should just ignore the Supreme Court. I'm not sure I understand how that works

Gingrich: Well, Bob, I think part of the advantage I have is that I'm not a lawyer. And so as historian, I look at the context of the judiciary and the constitution in terms of American history. The fact is, I'll just give you two examples -- Judge Biery's ruling on June 1st that he would jail the superintendent if anybody at the high school graduation used the word benediction, used the word invocation, asked for a moment of silence, asked the audience to stand, or mentioned God, he would jail the superintendent was such an anti-American dictatorship of speech that there's no reason the American people need to tolerate a federal judge who is that out of sync with an entire culture. So I have to ask the question, is there an alternative? What's the recourse? Well, one recourse is impeachment. The Supreme Court, in Boumediene...literally inserted the American civil liberties onto the battlefield. Now this is the opposite of World War II where Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the Supreme Court, through his attorney general, that the 14 German saboteurs that have been picked up in the U.S. would be tried by military tribunal and executed and that he would not tolerate a writ of habeas corpus as commander in chief. And so you have this real problem that since 1958, when the war in court asserted by itself, that the Supreme Court was supreme over the president and the congress, you've had a fundamental assault on our liberties by the courts, you have an increasingly arrogant judiciary, and the question is, is there anything we the American people can do? The standard conservative answer has been, well, eventually we'll appoint good judges. I think that's inadequate. The constitution promises a balance of the judicial branch, executive branch and legislative branch. The Federalist Papers say specifically the weakest of the three branches is the judiciary. Jefferson abolishes 18 out of 35 federal judges.

Schieffer: They'd just been created, though.

Gingrich: They'd just been created and they'd been appointed. And he abolishes them. Over half of all the judges. Jackson says of the court, they think the bank of the United States is constitutional, I don't think it's constitutional. Their opinion doesn't matter to me. I'm the president, they're over the judiciary, he vetoes it. Lincoln spends part of his first inaugural because people tend to forget, the Supreme Court in Dred Scott, ruled that slavery extended to the whole country. And Lincoln said very specifically, that's the law of the case that is not the law of the land. Nine people cannot create the law of the land or you have eliminated our freedom as a people.

Schieffer: Mr. Speaker, the old saying in legal circles is that the Supreme Court is not last because it's right, it's right because it's last. There comes a point where you have to accept things as the law of the land. How do you decide, how does the president decide what's a good law and I'm going to obey the Supreme Court or what's a bad law and I'm just going to ignore it?

Gingrich: I think it depends on the severity of the case. I'm not suggesting that the congress and the president review every decision. I'm suggesting that when there are decisions, using Boumediene as an example, in which they're literally risking putting civil liberty rules in battlefields, it's utterly irrational for the Supreme Court to take on its shoulders the defense of the United States. It's a violation of the constitution.

Schieffer: Brown vs. Board of Education was a very controversial decision. There were large number of people in the United States that didn't want to do that. Are you saying that should the president have been so disposed, he could have just ignored that?

Gingrich: I'm saying that in the case of Dred Scott, which was an equally important and terrible decision, remember the court's sometimes right, the court's sometimes wrong.

Schieffer: Well that was then, this is now

Gingrich: No, no, no. You can't be sure what the next court will do and the question is, as a people do we have the right to take the 9th Circuit Court, which ruled the one nation under God was unconstitutional in the pledge of allegiance. Do we as a people, where over 90 percent of the people believe that's false, the Senate and the House overwhelmingly rejected it immediately. They had a vote almost immediately, overwhelmingly rejected it.

Schieffer: Alright here's another one, this is now. Next year the Supreme Court is going to take up Obama's healthcare proposal. What if they throw it out? Can President Obama then say I'm sorry boys, I'm just going to go ahead and implement it. Could he do that?

Gingrich: The key question is, what would the congress then do? Because there are three branches...

Schieffer: But could he do that?

Gingrich: He could try to do that. And the congress would then cut him off. Here's the key -- it's always two out of three. If the president and the congress say the court is wrong, in the end the court would lose. If the congress and the court say the president is wrong, in the end the president would lose. And if the president and the court agreed, the congress loses. The founding fathers designed the constitution very specifically in a Montesquieu spirit of the laws to have a balance of power not to have a dictatorship by any one of the three branches.

Schieffer: Let me just tell you what several people have said about this. When the Des Moines Register announced that it was supporting Mitt Romney, it said one of the reasons is because he does not pander to extremes with attacks on the courts. And a number of conservatives, including two of George Bush's attorneys general, Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mulcasey both said and I'm going to just quote what Mr. Mulcasey said and he told this to Fox News, he wasn't telling it to Mother Jones. He told Fox News, he said "Mr. Gingrich's proposal is dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off the wall, and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle." Now that's a conservative judge or a conservative attorney general. How do you respond to that?

Gingrich: I think many lawyers will find this a very frightening idea. They've had this run of 50 years of pretending judges are supreme, that they can't be challenged. The lawyer class defines America. We've had rulings that outlawed school prayer, we've had ruling that outlawed the cross, we've had rulings the outlawed the 10 Commandments, we've had a steady secular drive to radicalize this country away from all of its core beliefs. I mean what got me into this was the 9th Circuit saying that one nation under God is unconstitutional. We live in a country where judge Biery can literally say I will put you in jail for saying the word benediction. There's something profoundly wrong with the judicial system that has moved to that kind of extreme behavior.

Schieffer: But I would also add that what happened in that case is that an appeals court overturned that judge.

Gingrich: Right.

Schieffer: And the system worked.

Gingrich: No the local school board ended up paying large legal fees. Let me give you an example of how much this elitism permeates the system. The House Franken Commission says members of the House cannot say Merry Christmas in their official correspondence. This is absurd. But it's part of the same elite anti-religious belief structure which leads the courts to define that you're supposed to take down the Mount Soledad cross in San Diego even though it's a historic cross. And I'm just suggesting to you...I got into this originally because of two things -- The steady encroachment of secularism through the courts to redefine America as a non-religious country and the encroachment of the courts on the president's commander in chief powers, which is enormously dangerous.

Schieffer: Let me just ask you this. You talk about enforcing it because one of things you say is if you don't like what a court has done, the congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before congress and hold a congressional hearing. Some people say that's unconstitutional but I'll let that go for a minute. I just want to ask you from a practical standpoint, how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol police down to arrest him?

Gingrich: If you had to or you'd instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshall. Let's take the case of Judge Biery. I think he should be asked to explain a position that radical. How could he say he's going to jail the superintendent over the word benediction and invocation? Because before...because then I would encourage impeachment. But before you move to impeachment, you'd like to know why he said it. Now clearly since the congress has the power...

Schieffer: What if he didn't come? What if he said, no thank you, I'm not coming?

Gingrich: Well that is what happens in impeachment cases. In an impeachment case, the House studies whether or not, the House brings them in, the House subpoenas them. And as a general rule they show up. I mean, but you're raising the core question, are judges above the rest of the constitution? Or are judges one of the three co-equal branches?

Schieffer: But isn't the other side of that is, are the rest of us above the constitution and obeying the law?

Gingrich: No.

Schieffer: Don't you at some point we have to say this is a nation of laws and we all have to....

Gingrich: We do. But I'll go back to Lincoln who people generally think respected the law. Lincoln explicitly instructed his administration to not enforce Dred Scott. And he said flatly, it's the law of the case, not the law of the land. It's in his first inaugural. By the way, if you go to Newt.org, there's an entire paper outlining the history of this case. Because I knew I was launching a topic that no other presidential candidate in modern time has launched. And I knew it had to be intellectually defensible.

Schieffer: And that's why I'm spending so much time on it here. It's fair to say, I think you agree Mr. Speaker, that the judicial system is already under enormous strain. It's almost impossible now to get a federal judge or certainly a Supreme Court Justice confirmed. We go through these long drawn out things. I think there are what, 80 something judgeships that are vacant right now?

Gingrich: Right.

Schieffer: Out of 800. What's that, a tenth? I guess. Wouldn't this just add to this? Wouldn't it just throw the entire system into chaos. Just sort of bring all three branches to a screeching hault...

Gingrich: No.

Schieffer: In a constitutional crisis?

Gingrich: This is why the 2012 election is very important. The reason we are so deadlocked is that we have an elite that still has an enormous amount of power and they would appoint very radical judges. You have the vast bulk of the American people who are opposed to that but they don't have enough power yet to stop it and one of the key questions in 2012 is simple - Do you want to move toward American exceptionalism? We assert the constitution. We assert the nature of America or do you, in fact, want to become a secular, European sort of bureaucratic socialist society? As long as these two sides are fighting, this is not because people have bad personalities or because people are incompetent. There is a fundamental conflict underway about what kind of country we're going to be.

Schieffer: Alright, we're going to take a break and talk about something else when we come back in a minute.

Gingrich: Alright.

Logged

AllenFirst and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband. They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind). Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.

Sheesh. The more you study it, the more this guy is absolutely off his rocker.

He is going for a Tyranny of the Majority.

If judges had to constantly be campaigning for their benches, we'd have a judicial system just like Congress: available to the highest bidder. If they are subservient to Congress or the President, they would not be able to impartially weigh the issues in a case. I would hope the Judiciary could be kept independent of this to act as a force of reason.

But I'll bet ronkny and Dickerson love his ideas. He's going to make an American Christian Taliban.

And Mr. Historian is probably conveniently forgetting that "under God" was added to the Pledge only in the 1950s.

there is an argument that the Supreme Court did take a power not granted it in the Constitution. it was first expressed in the case of Marbary v. Madison with the opinion written by Marshall back in 1803.

where the S CT asserted the right to declare an act of Congress, signed into law by the President was subject to constitutional review by the S CT and subject to its ruling that the law not autorized by the Constitution.

it has been accepted by the country overwhelmingly for over 300 years.

other than that, both Newt and Perry want to act as if the Supreme Court is not a coequal branch of our government. Perry wants to get rid life time appointment for federal judges which requires amendment of the US Constitution.

and they are conservatives???

Lincoln certainly "destroyed the Constitution to preseve the Constitution" and did not act constitutionally at all times. No true student of history would say other wise.

Logged

AllenFirst and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband. They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind). Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.

. . . This NEWT 2012 campaign document serves as political notice to the public and to thelegislative and judicial branches that a Gingrich administration will reject the theory of judicialsupremacy and will reject passivity as a response to Supreme Court rulings that ignore executiveand legislative concerns and which seek to institute policy changes that more properly rest withCongress. A Gingrich administration will use any appropriate executive branch powers, by itselfand acting in coordination with the legislative branch, to check and balance any Supreme Courtdecision it believes to be fundamentally unconstitutional and to rein in any federal judge(s)whose rulings exhibit a disregard for the Constitution. The historical and constitutional basis forthis position is outlined in this paper. . . .

It is historically inaccurate to say the least. Ask and I can demostrate

Logged

AllenFirst and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband. They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind). Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.

. . . The Gingrich campaign said it would work with the Republican Party of Virginia to pursue a write-in campaign, but Virginia does not allow write-in names in its primaries.

“Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates,” Michael Krull, Mr. Gingrich’s campaign director, said in a statement.

This misstep is bad news for Mr. Gingrich on several levels. Virginia is his adopted home state. Failing to gather enough signatures in your own backyard creates an image problem, at the very least.

“It’s a disaster for him,” said Larry J. Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. “This sends yet another signal to Republicans that Gingrich is not able to organize.”

He added that such a lack of organization “suggests you’re not a serious candidate.”

The failure to get on the ballot in Virginia could also shake the confidence of voters in states that go to the polls before Virginia does. Why, his supporters in those states might ask themselves, should I throw my vote away on someone who might not be competing in other critical states?

Also, Virginia is the country’s 12th-largest state in population. It will be offering up a trove of delegates on March 6, and now they are out of reach for Mr. Gingrich. He has been leading in the polls in Virginia, and his brand of conservatism is a natural fit for the state.

This failure to qualify for the ballot comes at a bad time for Mr. Gingrich as he faces headwinds in Iowa, where the caucuses start the nominating contest on Jan. 3, and it comes as he remains behind in the polls in New Hampshire. His strength appears to be in South Carolina, but in Virginia, there will be no Southern candidate on the ballot. . . .

Logged

AllenFirst and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband. They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind). Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.

Newt Gingrich took his condemnation of rival Mitt Romney to a new level Tuesday, saying the former Massachusetts governor was not being honest when claiming that he had no relation to a super PAC producing anti-Gingrich television ads.

"This is a man whose staff created the PAC and his millionaire friends fund the PAC and it's baloney," Gingrich continued. "He's not telling the American people the truth. Here's a Massachusetts moderate who has tax-paid abortions in Romneycare and puts Planned Parenthood in Romneycare and raises hundreds of million of dollars and appoints liberal judges and wants the rest of us to believe he's somehow magically a conservative."

Gingrich said Romney needed to be honest with voters about his record.

"I think he ought to be honest with the American people and try to win as the real Mitt Romney and not consultant-guided version that goes with talking points. I don't think he's being candid and that will be a major issue," Romney said.

I wonder if he will say it to his face in the next debate?

Logged

AllenFirst and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband. They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind). Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.

We've been keeping regular track of claims made about Mitt Romney's business history over at our Mitt Meter, but today's video "documentary" from the Gingrich-affiliated Winning Our Future PAC requires its own post. The ominous music, deep-voiced narrator and tails of worker woe were all to be expected. But I also thought that the video would get most of its basic facts correct (and then cover them in innuendo). I was wrong.

The video titled When Mitt Romney Came to Town discusses several Bain Capital companies that eventually went bankrupt or were shut down. What follows is a series of errors:

. . . To be clear, none of this is to suggest that Romney and Bain didn't make some very real mistakes, or that they shouldn't be criticized for situations in which they profited from financial engineering rather than from company growth. But the Winning Our Future PAC goes beyond that, intentionally obscuring the record in a way that makes such honest discussions more difficult. And for that, Winning Our Future deserves some scorn of its own

oh, b/c it's Newt

Logged

AllenFirst and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband. They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind). Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.

A federal judge on Friday ruled against four GOP presidential candidates seeking a spot on Virginia's March 6 primary ballot, saying they waited too long to file their claims.

Left off the ballot are Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.S Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.

The four candidates had challenged the state's residency requirements for those seeking to circulate ballot petitions, but Judge John Gibney ruled against the challenge.

"They [the four GOP candidates] knew the rules in Virginia many months ago," the judge wrote in his ruling. "In essence, they played the game, lost, and then complained that the rules were unfair." . . . .

Virginia holds its Republican primary on March 6, Super Tuesday. At stake in the primary are Virginia's 49 delegates.

Virginia state law specifically prohibits voters from writing in candidates not on the ballot in primary elections.

Huntsman and Santorum did not file petitions with the Virginia State Board of Elections that would have allowed them a place in the state's primary. Gingrich and Perry filed petitions that were later rejected by the Republican Party of Virginia for not meeting requirements.

The four candidates sued the state's board of elections over laws they claimed were "unconstitutional." . . .

Logged

AllenFirst and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband. They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind). Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.

A man driven from the 3rd highest office in the land by his own party comes back and wins a state primary for his party's nomination. RMN would be proud.

and the candidate is yelling about capitalism to boot.

the news media is rejoicing.

GOP enjoy your new contested primary season, as I understand it, your new wunderkid is not in the ballot in Virginia, Florida is a "winner take all state" and there will be mutltiple choices for conservatives with Santorum and Gingrich and Romney.

I bet the WH is celebrating thinking about how to run against a former Speaker run off by his own party.

Logged

AllenFirst and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband. They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind). Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.